Dr Selbi Durdiyeva, Senior Research Fellow Published: 5th November 2026 Cultural assumptions are undermining fairness in asylum and immigration tribunals, new Public Law Project research finds. Read the full report here. Public Law Project’s study of 271 Upper Tribunal decisions finds that relationships, sexuality, and trauma are too often judged against narrow Western-centric expectations. Decision-makers in the asylum and immigration system often expect people’s family lives, LGBTQ+ identities, and experiences of trauma to fit a single, Western-shaped template, new research from Public Law Project (PLP) has found. The report, Identity, Relationships, and Vulnerability, is the second in PLP’s series on cultural, procedural and linguistic barriers to justice. It finds that the legal and policy framework contains important safeguards for fair process but those safeguards are hard to apply in practice. It also examines how applicants experience the system and whether it is possible to translate family and/or private life, LGBTQ+ identity and belonging, and mental health and trauma into ‘objective’ evidence, given the inherently heterogeneous ways in which people experience sexual identity, relationships and mental health. The report’s central argument is that cultural understanding lies at the heart of asylum and immigration tribunals, so cultural competence is a matter of procedural fairness. Key findings include: Families and private life – tribunals increasingly recognise different forms of relationships, such as extended families and cultural marriages, but expectations remain largely shaped by Western norms. In cases relating to family and/or private life, the following issues were observed: a rigid or prescriptive approach to what constitutes ‘family ties’; hierarchical categorisation of family life; assumptions about what constitutes ‘normal’, ‘natural’ or more deserving relationships; and a rigid or unrealistic approach to evidencing relationships. LGBTQ+ identity – decisions highlight a limited or narrow approach to understanding what constitutes LGBTQ+ identity. Evidence found that Judges have: treated sexuality as limited to relationships; expected a clear, cohesive, and linear account of ‘coming out’ as an ‘emotional journey’; expected uniform openness about sexuality from the applicants; applied a one-size-fits-all approach to evidence; and at times resorted to stereotypical language or observations. Mental health and trauma – Judges and the Home Office often expect the following: a linear and coherent account of mental health issues that largely does not consider relapses; a lack of consideration for how people in different cultures talk (or avoid talking) about mental health and trauma; a lack of support for professionals involved in the process who might experience trauma and vicarious trauma; and a failure to give an appropriate account of how participation is affected by trauma. What needs to happen? The report provides practical recommendations to address the issues on systemic and structural levels, including: Stronger safeguards and specialist training: reaffirm existing safeguards and regulations, backed by regular briefings that bring an up-to-date understanding of private and family life, LGBTQ+ identity, and mental health. A shift in mindset: recognise that culturally sensitive, trauma-informed approaches matter for evidence, credibility assessment and tribunal procedure. More support for people in the process: hearings are highly traumatic, and trauma and vulnerability affect applicants’ capacity to recall and to engage effectively in the process. Listening rather than assuming: decision-makers should explicitly recognise the variety of human experiences related to family and/or private life and LGBTQ+ identity and listen to the varied ways people describe themselves and their relationships. This change in procedural culture would help reduce avoidable appeals, improve consistency, ensure fairer outcomes for applicants, and enhance confidence in the fairness and integrity of the asylum tribunal system. Dr Selbi Durdiyeva, Senior Research Fellow at Public Law Project, said: “Immigration and Asylum tribunals have a well-developed infrastructure and an array of experts, notably the unsung heroes of the justice system: interpreters and country experts. Instruments such as the Judiciary’s Equal Treatment Bench Book are also well developed and offer judges a comprehensive, though non-binding source on cultural and linguistic sensitivity and understanding (among else). But, as many cases in the report show, the socio, cultural and political context people come from varies widely, even within a single country or community, and they change rapidly. We call for greater emphasis on listening to and considering the individual circumstances of each case, including cultural and linguistic nuance. These are not only matters of procedural fairness and access to justice; they can materially alter the outcome of a case and should be afforded the attention and consideration their complexity demands.”